IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19934 of 2008(W)
1. G.SUSEELA, VILLAGE OFFICER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
4. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.19934 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 2nd July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
While working as U.D. Clerk in the Special
Tahasildar’s office at Kollam, petitioner was promoted as
Village Officer by Exhibit-P1 order dated 19.7.2006 and
posted in Kannur District. But apparently there was an
error in the order in as much as that petitioner was
shown as posted from Kottayam to Kannur whereas she
was posted from Kollam to Kannur. Petitioner was not
relieved from Kollam and therefore she could not join
duty at Kannur. The error was corrected by subsequent
order dated 4.8.2006. But even that was not
communicated to the petitioner. She was not therefore
relieved from the office of the Special Tahalsildar at
Kollam. The said order was cancelled. The net result is
that petitioner continued as a U.D Clerk at Kollam. But
juniors came to be promoted as Village Officer and they
took charge in the respective stations. It is only by
12.12.2007, petitioner was ultimately posted in
W.P ( C) No.19934 of 2008
2
Malappuram, where she is currently working, petitioner
rightly feels that for no fault of hers, she has been deprived
posting as a Village Officer with effect from July, 2006.
When her juniors were promoted and posted as Village
Officer, she is entitled to maintain her seniority in terms of
the order dated 19.7.2006 by which she was originally
promoted as Village Officer. Her request in this regard is
pending before the 1st respondent as Exhibit-P2.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader.
3. In my view, petitioner’s request ought to be considered
and appropriate remedial action may be taken by the 1st
respondent.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing
the 1st respondent to consider and take appropriate action on
Exhibit-P2 within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition
along with copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent
for compliance.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.19934 of 2008
3
W.P ( C) No.19934 of 2008
4